I don’t believe the Dave Clark Five belongs in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.\u00c2\u00a0 Oh, they had a few good tracks, but they mostly just filled the vacuum, followed in the footsteps of the Beatles.\u00c2\u00a0 Goddamn it, the U.S. was Brit-band happy, and we needed another act!<\/p>\n
Not that that kept the mania from reaching my doorstep.\u00c2\u00a0 I bought the first two Dave Clark Five albums.\u00c2\u00a0 "Glad All Over" and "Bits and Pieces" were classics, but the rest of the first album, with the exception of the band’s take on "Do You Love Me", was disappointing.\u00c2\u00a0 I was expecting more Beatles, an act that had you loving every track, instead I felt the black and white cover of the album was a cost-saving measure, although I did want to emulate Mike Smith, he looked cool, didn’t he?\u00c2\u00a0 As for the second album, except for "Can’t You See That’s She Mine", it was dreck.\u00c2\u00a0 I stopped after that, I didn’t go to see their movie, they were just following the Beatle blueprint, there wasn’t much to believe in.<\/p>\n
Not that I mind hearing the old hits on the radio now and again.\u00c2\u00a0 As stated earlier, they were good.\u00c2\u00a0 Good enough to anoint the band legendary status?\u00c2\u00a0 Interesting question.\u00c2\u00a0 But if they earn the votes, they should get into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.<\/p>\n
"Rolling Stone" changed my life.\u00c2\u00a0 Not only did the magazine focus on my passion, music, it allowed the writers to go on at length, allowing you to bask in the subject.\u00c2\u00a0 "Rolling Stone" was our magazine.\u00c2\u00a0 Oh, it changed over time, but we still read it.\u00c2\u00a0 Until Jann Wenner blinked and changed the format.\u00c2\u00a0 Believing the false "Blender" circulation numbers, Mr. Wenner made all the articles shorter, and featured so many record reviews with so little depth of analysis that you could no longer read them.\u00c2\u00a0 Oh, we used to read the reviews of acts we had no interest in, to be edified, to be informed, but now there was nothing left to learn.\u00c2\u00a0 And music…music no longer drove the culture.<\/p>\n
Which is maybe why Mr. Wenner moved on to gossip.\u00c2\u00a0 It seems gossip is the rock and roll of today.\u00c2\u00a0 Actually, I’d argue that technology is the rock and roll of today, but it comes with a dividing line.\u00c2\u00a0 Between those who know how their computer works and those still using AOL.\u00c2\u00a0 Gossip can be understood by anybody.\u00c2\u00a0 And Mr. Wenner has done very well in the sphere with "Us".<\/p>\n
But rock and roll, rock and roll has languished.<\/p>\n
You’d think that Mr. Wenner would see this as a crisis, try to change the culture, instead he just featured more bimbos on the cover of "Rolling Stone" in an effort to move magazines.<\/p>\n
Still, Mr. Wenner sees himself as an arbiter of truth, as someone who stands up for what’s right.\u00c2\u00a0 All the way from the seventies, the sixties, to today.<\/p>\n
Yes, "Rolling Stone" questioned authority, in depth, way back when.\u00c2\u00a0 With not only Hunter Thompson, but Timothy Crouse.\u00c2\u00a0 You had to stand up against corruption, you had to reveal what happened behind the scenes, you had to inform the populace of how their institutions were really run.<\/p>\n
And "Rolling Stone" still does this.\u00c2\u00a0 Featuring not long ago an article by Robert Kennedy, Jr. delineating how the Republicans stole the 2004 Presidential election.<\/p>\n
Who stole the 2007 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame election?\u00c2\u00a0 Was it this same Mr. Wenner?<\/p>\n
Roger Friedman of Fox News seems to believe so.\u00c2\u00a0 He published an article <\/p>\n
\n